The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Today I learned Tony's opinion on any given issue is dictated by what other people think about that issue, if the wrong kind of person agrees with him then he'll change his position accordingly. Which is obviously logical.
 
Roar87 said:
Today I learned Tony's opinion on any given issue is dictated by what other people think about that issue, if the wrong kind of person agrees with him then he'll change his position accordingly. Which is obviously logical.
Click to expand...

Concidering this thread and you. That post has to be the most ironic one youve posted so far.

TBF to @Sankari I dont think he shares the same level of misconception as the rest.
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
If Elon feels he needs to go down this route he should start labelling politicians. If one gets the highest percentage of their funding from big pharma for example they should label him/her as so. Just watch how this support of Twitter labelling media would change in an instant and the politician would be up in arms.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this, if it can be proven, then why not.

Roar87 said:
Today I learned Tony's opinion on any given issue is dictated by what other people think about that issue, if the wrong kind of person agrees with him then he'll change his position accordingly. Which is obviously logical.
Click to expand...

You've only just noticed this? Suprised, it's very obvious.
 
Begbie said:
I don't disagree with this, if it can be proven, then why not.
Click to expand...

Because politicians would lose their ****. Big donors labelled as such would lose their ****. Law suits would follow, Elon would see a wall of litigation and drop it in an instant. He is only in favour of labelling things he doesn't like and at the moment that is the media as he wants people not to trust it but only trust him and Twitter. If he was genuine about this labelling he'd do what I suggested, its not like he hasn't thought of it or someone who works for him hasn't thought of it.
 
Why do we have to attach labels to everything and everyone nowadays.

I don't really see the need to have a label against news broadcasters or anyone on twitter really. Just distrust them all equally until proven they confirm your views / or are genuinely trustworthy (take your pick which you are after ;) )
I mean what is it adding?

If we were adding worthwhile labels we would label those who were in the group of investigative journalists who generally are to be trusted (UK I believe is BBC and guardian), oh and maybe a label for those such as Fox "news" who have to specifically argue they are in fact not a news channel at all to avoid being sued for fake news ;)
That had worked until yesterday anyway. :D
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Why do we have to attach labels to everything and everyone nowadays.

I don't really see the need to have a label against news broadcasters or anyone on twitter really. Just distrust them all equally until proven they confirm your views / or are genuinely trustworthy (take your pick which you are after ;) )
I mean what is it adding?

If we were adding worthwhile labels we would label those who were in the group of investigative journalists who generally are to be trusted (UK I believe is BBC and guardian), oh and maybe a label for those such as Fox "news" who have to specifically argue they are in fact not a news channel at all to avoid being sued for fake news ;)
That had worked until yesterday anyway. :D
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. I don't think he should be labelling media but if you're going to do it then follow through with other public figures such as politicians.
 
Watched bits and bobs on youtube earlier, not sure why Tucker is so surprised by the government having access. I thought it was pretty common knowledge they watch and observe a lot of communication and data regarding its citizens. Snowden revelations and that act that came in after 9/11 (can't remember the name) pretty much gave the gov a broad brush to snoop.
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
Well you see... he's not surprised as it's all for show.

There is no position on which Mr Tucker won't 180 or feign ignorance on.
Click to expand...

Like knowing the whole voter fraud thing was a load of rubbish and still talking about it.

www.businessinsider.com

Here are the winners and losers of Fox News's $787.5 million settlement with Dominion

Dominion cashes in, Fox avoids a potentially embarrassing trial, and the public loses out on seeing Fox News hosts grilled on the stand.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

And legally speaking if you believe everything he says your an idiot


I'm glad the Elon interview seems to have generated about as much buzz as a damp fart
 
This perpetually online Trump supporter who spends most of his time trolling people is trigged because the grand vision of a 'free speech absolutist' Twitter has failed to materialise.


Given time, he might just start to realise that Musk doesn't care about anyone but himself, and is merely using Twitter as a personal vanity project.

Trusty said:
Watched bits and bobs on youtube earlier, not sure why Tucker is so surprised by the government having access. I thought it was pretty common knowledge they watch and observe a lot of communication and data regarding its citizens. Snowden revelations and that act that came in after 9/11 (can't remember the name) pretty much gave the gov a broad brush to snoop.
Click to expand...

Musk has provided not even a single piece of evidence to support his claim, so let's wait until we have that at least.
 
Last edited:
Hacker hacks Matt Walsh's Twitter account and starts posting abusive anti-LGBTQ messages. Senior reporter for WIRED interviews hacker, and writes an article on the incident. Musk bans him.


Wired reporter Dell Cameron was banned from Twitter on Wednesday after reporting on a hacker who hijacked far-right provocateur Matt Walsh’s account the night before.

According to screenshots shared by Cameron on social media site Mastodon, Cameron was “permanently suspended” by the Elon Musk-owned platform for violating Twitter’s rules against the “distribution of hacked material.”

If this sounds familiar, this was the policy that Twitter used to initially justify blocking the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop just ahead of the 2020 presidential election and restrict the Post’s official Twitter account.

After receiving significant backlash over the decision, Twitter soon reversed course and made changes to the policy, stating it wouldn’t remove hacked content “unless it is directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them.”
Click to expand...

(Source).

My take:

* Walsh deserved to be hacked; he's a professional troll, and a thoroughly revolting person who deserves all the abuse he gets
* Musk's decision to ban Cameron is another nail in the coffin of his 'free speech absolutist' claim
 
Last edited:
Sankari said:
Musk has provided not even a single piece of evidence to support his claim, so let's wait until we have that at least.
Click to expand...

And he won't. The Twitter Files is a joke. He could have provided all the information to all the major publications and let them do their own investigations but he won't because they follow his narrative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom